Posted on 08/10/2011 11:48:04 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
I forget, how many federal offices did Ronald Reagan run for? And how about your candidate. Please inform us on how many he or she won.
Sam, there are many quarterbacks in the Hall of Fame.
But there are no cheerleaders.
Nice of you to stop by and tell us how successful Sarah is doing things wrong. How did she ever make it to be world known without your help?
I would be very disappointed in her if she did that...however; you are right; Palin and Perry seem to be pretty tight.
Halls of Fame are for narcissists and sports figures (I repeat myself)... not for patriots.
Patriots don’t serve their country to be in a Hall of Fame.
Thomas Paine, neither a “quarterback” or the member of a Hall of Fame... but man what a patriot.
You should re-think the reason you support people. If you support them because you want them to be American Idols, you should maybe crack a book once in a while and learn something of American History.
It’s actually a beautiful thing.
BTW... Joe Miller won HIS primary... the republicrat leadership spent millions... allied with the rats and machine party operatives that put the party and business as usual above America and the Republic for whch she stands. That's right... win at any cost... business as usual... and they helped to put murKOWski back in by stealing the election. By using two out of a myriad of Tea Party Patriots that she helped to propel into office, just shows the weakness of you argument.
You also state an obvious false assumption about the candidates winning without Sarah's help... if that were true... YOU and cnn/msnbc/cnbc/cbs/abc/nbc would not be attacking her and neither would the putrid left... the more that people like you declare that she is irrelevant and that she is not running... the stronger Sarah grows... and the more you and others lose credibility... and you are allied with the left in your attack on her... that cannot be comfortable for a conservative... and I know you are a conservative.
You are also showing an extreme comprehension problem... NO ONE WAS GOING TO WIN A REPUBLICAN SEAT IN THE HOME STATE OF biden... never could have happened... NO WAY JOSE!
You are wrong about Sarah and I will remind you of that if Sarah decides to run... and millions of us think that she will. I will donate $2500.00 to her as soon as she announces... I will help to raise tens of thousands for her campaign... just like I did for Reagan... twice! Many here on FR have pledged the same... and I will not give a dime to anyone else running... and I am not alone in that decision either.
LLS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2762157/posts
CREW Exposed
DEConservative blog ^ | 8/11/11 | Evan Queitsch
Posted on Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:26:31 AM by DEConservative
A new website out today delves into the realm of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). You may remember CREW from previous posts on this blog as well as from the recently dismissed charges against Christine O’Donnell. Like most CREW complaints, the one against O’Donnell was dismissed by the U.S. Attorney because they were completely fabricated. As we broke here on this blog, CREW violated their IRS mandate to remain non-political when they attacked Christine O’Donnell during the campaign and they violated federal law when they filed a knowingly false affidavit signed by David Keegan whose entire smear campaign of lies was simply designed to keep Christine from running again.
The new website also delves into the partisanship of CREW. A quick look over the founders of CREW shows the partisan angle. Norm Eisen who was Deputy General Counsel to Obama’s transition team joined Daniel Berger, a massive donor to Democrat campaigns (including Christine O’Donnell’s opponent Chris Coons) and Clinton pollster Mark Penn to start CREW in 2003 as a way to compete with the conservative ethics groups that had questioned Bill Clinton’s philandering in the White House. They needed a face for the organization and so they tapped another ultra-liberal Democrat to head up CREW, Melanie Sloan. Sloan came with plenty of leftist credentials, she’d worked for Representative John “Read the bill” Conyers in the House, she then worked for Senator (now VP) Joe “Stand up Chuck” Biden and she also worked for NY Democrat Chuck “3 branches of government?” Schumer when he was in the House of Representatives. Sloan isn’t the only leftist in the mix, in fact, the website finds that “there isn’t a single current or former CREW staffer with comparable experience working for a conservative organization or Republican politician.”
As if that weren’t enough, the new site exposes CREW’s record of attacks against Republicans over Democrats. The chart below clearly shows that CREW files more complaints against Republicans than Democrats and it clearly shows that the actions taken by the ethics committees lean more toward Democrats than Republicans. What does that mean? It means that CREW is either REALLY ineffective as a “watchdog” or it’s just out to be a Democrat Attackdog.
Beat Whitey Night at the Iowa State Fair
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2576600/posts
You raise the scaffolding of your theory on stunningly incomplete data. Your theory, every point of it, requires an event for which you offer no evidence whatsoever, some sinister, inverse “conversion,” a falling to the dark side, Palin going from this ordinary, good Christian woman depicted in her pre-2008 biography, to this avaricious, devilishly cunning, evil deceiver of her fan base. Your entire system of hypotheses concerning her current behavior relies 100% on this unproven belief about her character. And it won’t do to go circular on me, using your conclusions to prove your a priori belief. You have, however inadvertently, introduced her character as legitimate subject matter in your theory of the case, and you must be held to proving that fact by independent means.
So I put it to you directly: Do you have objective, material evidence that Sarah Palin is of such a character that she would intentionally mislead millions for personal gain?
Such an accusation is the very soul of defamation, unless of course it can be shown true. I am an objective person. If you really can show that Sarah Palin is someone other than the good-hearted, intelligent, honest-to-a-fault, frugal, and non-materialistic person that emerges from her biography and all its data sources so far revealed, I will listen. I do not want to vote for someone capable of playing that kind of game with good people. No one here would. And that of course is your objective, to taint her reputation by casting doubt on her motives, for which you never offer proof.
And please note that innuendo is not proof. There is a term I like, “equivocal,” which loosely means, “of equal voice.” You offer her continued tenure at Fox as “proof” she has no intent to run at any point in the future. That is non-sequitur logic because it is equivocal data, i.e., the individual fact cited can be taken any number of ways, some of which support your view, some of which do not. If Palin is running, she has a distinct advantage, financially and tactically, by staying below FEC radar until the last possible moment. As long as she remains ambiguous abut her intentions within the coded language of the relevant legal precedents, there is no basis upon which her employer can invoke equal time restrictions. This is backed up by her power to enforce the contract should Fox act prematurely.
I had a law professor who once asked the class about an innovative end run done by the protagonist in an estate case we were studying. “Is it wrong, or is it clever?” Many people come to the law and see it as a barrier to their objectives. And oftentimes it is. But some, the more clever and persistent among us, are able to spot gaps in the law. And if those gaps are not unethical, but merely legislative oversights, and if the thing itself is not morally wrong to do, is it a crime to be clever and make good use of those gaps? Of course not.
But of course in doing clever things one risks being misunderstood by the less clever. Which is doubtless why Palin, whom I seriously doubt has turned to the dark side, has repeatedly signaled her ground troops to stay at the ready. And it is really not too hard to pick up that signal, if you do not assume facts not in evidence regarding her character.
We do agree on one thing. There is purpose in her actions. But we disagree on the person who is doing those acts. You say it is the Evil Palin, sans evidence. I say it is the Good Palin, because of the abundance of evidence. Time will tell which of us is right. No one is perfect but God, and I have eaten crow before and am prepared to man up and eat it again if I must. Only this time I think it is you and your fellow defamers who must be prepared to taste the foul feast. I will loan you my salt and ketchup should it come to that. I am sure you would do the same for me.
Ouch! If he has more than two brain cells, he won’t be back for more of that for awhile.
“But of course in doing clever things one risks being misunderstood by the less clever.”
The foul feast indeed. Well spoken!
The form of your argument applies perfectly in a refutation of most if not all anti-Palin rhetoric, as well as almost any liberal talking point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.